medigraphic.com
ISSN 1561-3062 (Electronic)

2015, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Revista Cubana de Obstetricia y Ginecología 2015; 41 (3)

Effectiveness of transvaginal ultrasound in predicting preterm labor in pregnant women with 22 weeks

Santana EH, Abreu CY, Llambías PA

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page:
PDF size: 204.63 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: prematurity is a situation confronted by obstetricians and neonatologists over the years. Progress is being made in understanding its aetiopathogenesis, in spite of which the figures remain high.
Objective: to prove the effectiveness of transvaginal ultrasound in diagnostic and prevention of preterm labor.
Material and method: analytical and cross-sectional study performed in pregnant women of Ciego de Ávila Municipality, from December 2012 to December 2014. The sample group comprised 110 pregnant women with 22 week of gestation and who were admitted to the obstetrics service, examined by transvaginal ultrasound, and followed up until the 37 weeks of gestation, as definite diagnostic test (gold test). Chi-square, T-student and its homologue Mann-Whitney U test were applied; an effectiveness study of the sonogram was also performed by analysis of diagnostic effectiveness. The assessed variables were sensibility, specificity, predictive values and validity rate.
Results: the third decade of life was the most affected in pregnant women who presented preterm birth without statistical significance. The cervical characteristics presented by the pregnant women with preterm labor were low risk and significantly potential prematurity. Preterm labor was related to the sonographic findings; ultrasound scan produced 90% of sensibility, 80% of specificity, and 99% and 31% of respectively negative and positive predictive values.
Conclusions: transvaginal ultrasound is finally assessed as excellent means acting as exclusion testing.


REFERENCES

  1. Meis PJ, Michielutte R, Peters TJ, Wells HB, Sands RE, Coles EC, et al. Factors associated with preterm birth in Cardiff, Wales. II. Indicated and spontaneous preterm birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;173:597-9.

  2. Meis PJ, Goldenberg RL, Mercer BM, Iams JD, Moawad AH, Miodovnik M, et al. The preterm prediction study: risk factors for indicated preterm birth. Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;178:562-5.

  3. Goldenberg RL, Iams JD, Mercer BM, Meis PJ, Moawad AH, Copper RL, et al. The preterm prediction study: the value of new vs standard risk factors in predicting early and all spontaneous preterm births. NICHD MFMU Network. Am JPublic Health. 2008;88:233-8.

  4. Newman RB. The Preterm Prediction Study: comparison of the cervical score and Bishop score for the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth. J Soc Gynecol Investig. 2007;4:152-A.

  5. Amon E, Petrie RH. Tocolytic agents; En: Charles D, Glover DD, editores. Current therapy in obstetrics. Toronto: Decker; 2008. p. 267-270.

  6. Iams JD, Goldenberg RL, Meis PJ, et al. The length of the cervix and the risk of spontaneous premature delivery. N Engl J Med. 2006;334:567-72.

  7. Iams JD, Paraskos J, Landon MB, Teteris JN, Johnson FF. Cervical sonography in preterm labor. Obstet Gynecol 1994;84:40-6.

  8. Goldberg J, Newman RB and Rust PF. Interobserver reliability of digital and endovaginal ultrasonographic cervical length measurements. Am J Obstet Gynecol.1997;177:853-8.

  9. Anderson HF: Transvaginal and transabdominal ultrasonography of the uterine cervix during pregnancy. J Clin Ultrasound. 1991;19:77-83.

  10. Skentou C, Cicero S, Nicolaides KH. Cervical assessment at the routine 23-weeks. scan: problems with transabdominal sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;15:292-96.

  11. Cruz laguna GC, Trinchet Varela C, Palacio Peña J. Test para la profilaxis de la prematuridad. Tesis en opción al grado científico de doctor en ciencias médicas. Hospital Provincial Universitario “Vladimir Ilich Lenin” Instituto Superior de Ciencias Médicas Santiago de Cuba. Facultad de Ciencias Médicas “Mariana Grajales Coello”. Holguín, Cuba; 2008.

  12. Cruz Laguna GM. Test para la profilaxis de la prematuridad [Internet].2009[citado 12 Nov 2010].[aprox. 125 pantallas] Disponible en: http://tesis.repo.sld.cu/189/1/Cruz_Gladys_Mar%C3%ADa.pdf.

  13. Treuer CP. Quiroz VG. Araneda HC. Longitud cervical y fibronectina en el síntoma de parto prematuro. Rev Chil obstet ginecol 2008;73(1):31-34.

  14. Gomez R, Galasso M, Romero R, Mazor M, Sorokin Y, Goncalves L, et al. Ultrasonographic examination of the uterine cervix is better than cervical digital examination as a predictor of the likelihood of premature delivery in patients with preterm labor and intact membranes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;171:956-64.

  15. Torres PCh. Carrillo JT. Rojas VB. Astudillo PA. Delgado IA. Pastén JR. Insunza AF. Paiva W. Longitud del canal cervical uterino como factor de riesgo de parto prematuro en pacientes sintomáticas. Rev Chil obstet ginecol 2008; 73(5):330–336.

  16. González A, Hernando Donado J, Agudelo David F, Meja Hernán D, Peñaranda Claudia B. Asociación entre la cervicometría y el parto prematuro en pacientes con sospecha de trabajo de parto pretérmino inicial. Revista Colombiana de Obstetricia y Ginecología. 2005; 56(2):127-33.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com